If one has a close relative with Trump Derangement Syndrome, what should one do?

 

Step 1: Understanding the Context and Defining the Goal

Your stated goal (X) is to continue speaking with your relative and to persuade or influence them to overcome what you perceive as "Trump Derangement Syndrome"—an intense, often irrational hostility toward Donald Trump that may be straining your relationship. I’ve researched the phenomenon of TDS, which is not a clinical diagnosis but a pejorative term used to describe extreme emotional or ideological opposition to Trump, often characterized by overreactions, obsession with his actions, or inability to discuss him without anger or distress. The advice will focus on fostering constructive communication, reducing emotional reactivity, and encouraging rational discussion, rather than endorsing or opposing any political stance.

Step 2: Research and Information Gathering

Based on psychological principles, communication strategies, and social dynamics, the following facts are relevant to achieving your goal:

• Human Nature and Emotions: Emotions often drive political beliefs, and intense reactions can stem from deeply held values, fear, or perceived threats. Reason, while man’s primary tool for survival, can be clouded by emotion if not consciously directed (Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; Peikoff, Understanding Objectivism).
• Cognitive Biases: Confirmation bias and tribalism can entrench beliefs, making individuals resistant to opposing views. Challenging beliefs directly often triggers defensiveness (Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow).
• Communication Dynamics: Empathy, active listening, and non-confrontational dialogue are more effective in reducing hostility than argumentation or criticism (Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy).
• Social Bonds: Relationships are sustained by mutual respect and shared values. Focusing on common ground rather than divisive issues helps maintain connection (Gottman, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work).
• Political Polarization: Hyper-polarization in modern discourse amplifies emotional reactions to figures like Trump. De-escalation requires focusing on principles over personalities (Haidt, The Righteous Mind).

Step 3: Deriving Objective "Oughts"

Using the framework provided, I will derive a series of objective "oughts" based on the standard of life proper to a rational being—emphasizing reason, mutual respect, and the preservation of voluntary relationships. These are conditional necessities: If you choose to live as a rational being and maintain this relationship, you ought to act in the following ways to achieve your goal of influencing your relative to moderate their intense reactions.

1. If you choose to live as a rational being and maintain this relationship, you ought to prioritize empathy and understanding over confrontation.
   Causal Basis: Human survival in social contexts depends on cooperation and trust. Emotional hostility often stems from feeling misunderstood or attacked. Empathy—acknowledging the other’s feelings without necessarily agreeing—reduces defensiveness and opens the door to rational dialogue. Research shows that empathetic listening can de-escalate conflict and foster connection (Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy).
   Application: Listen actively to your relative’s concerns about Trump without immediately countering them. Ask questions like, “What about this situation upsets you the most?” to understand their underlying values or fears.

2. If you choose to live as a rational being and influence your relative, you ought to avoid direct challenges to their beliefs about Trump and instead focus on shared values or neutral topics.
   Causal Basis: Reason requires freedom from coercion, including emotional pressure. Directly attacking deeply held beliefs often entrenches them due to cognitive biases like the backfire effect (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Focusing on shared values or non-political aspects of life aligns with the virtue of justice—giving each person their due as a rational being—and preserves the relationship.
   Application: Steer conversations away from Trump when possible. Discuss family history, personal goals, or shared interests to rebuild rapport. If politics arises, frame discussions around principles (e.g., “I think we both value fairness—how do you see that playing out?”) rather than specific figures.

3. If you choose to live as a rational being and reduce your relative's emotional reactivity, you ought to model calmness and rationality in your own behavior.
   Causal Basis: Rationality, as a virtue, is the primary means of human survival and must be practiced consistently. Emotional reactivity is contagious, but so is composure. Demonstrating calm, principled discussion can influence others to mirror that behavior over time (Goleman, Emotional Intelligence).
   Application: When your relative becomes agitated about Trump, remain composed. Avoid sarcasm or frustration. Respond with statements like, “I see this is important to you. Let’s break it down—what’s the core issue here?” to redirect toward reason.

4. If you choose to live as a rational being and persuade your relative to reconsider their intensity, you ought to gently encourage self-reflection through open-ended questions rather than arguments.
   Causal Basis: Reason operates through volition; forcing conclusions violates the integrity of an individual’s mind. Asking questions helps others examine their premises without feeling attacked, aligning with the virtue of independence—encouraging self-directed thought (Peikoff, Understanding Objectivism).
   Application: Pose neutral, thought-provoking questions like, “Do you think focusing so much on this one person helps achieve the change you want?” or “How do you think this anger affects your day-to-day life?” This invites introspection without confrontation.

5. If you choose to live as a rational being and sustain this relationship long-term, you ought to set boundaries to protect your own mental well-being and the integrity of the interaction.
   Causal Basis: The virtue of pride requires self-respect and the maintenance of one’s rational capacity. Allowing toxic dynamics to persist undermines your life as a rational being. Boundaries ensure interactions remain voluntary and life-serving (Rand, Ayn Rand Lexicon).
   Application: Politely but firmly establish limits if discussions become hostile. Say, “I value our relationship, but I’d rather not discuss this topic if it’s going to upset us both. Can we talk about something else?” If necessary, limit the frequency of interactions to preserve your peace of mind.

6. If you choose to live as a rational being and influence your relative to overcome extreme reactions, you ought to be patient and recognize that change in deep-seated emotional responses takes time.
   Causal Basis: Human consciousness is volitional but not instantaneous; emotional habits and beliefs are often ingrained through repetition and require consistent, long-range effort to alter. Productiveness, as a virtue, includes persistence in achieving life-serving goals (Peikoff, Understanding Objectivism).
   Application: Do not expect immediate results. Focus on small, incremental progress in your conversations, celebrating moments of mutual understanding or reduced hostility as steps forward.

Step 4: Validation and Integration

These "oughts" are reduced to perceptual facts and causal necessities: human emotions influence behavior (observable in daily interactions), rational dialogue requires mutual respect (evident in successful relationships), and coercion or hostility undermines reason (seen in failed communications). They integrate without contradiction—each principle supports the others by emphasizing reason, respect, and patience. They align with the standard of life proper to a rational being, as they promote voluntary, reality-based interaction over force or emotional whim.

Step 5: Contextual Absolutes and Safeguards

These principles are absolute within the context of normal human relationships, not emergency scenarios (e.g., immediate danger or abuse, which would require different actions). They reject subjectivism (feelings as standards) by grounding advice in causal necessities, and intrinsicism (arbitrary duties) by tying norms to the goal of rational life. They respect individual rights by avoiding coercion or manipulation, focusing instead on voluntary influence through reason.

Advice Summary

To maintain your relationship with your relative and influence them to overcome what you perceive as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," follow these objective "oughts" as conditional necessities for a rational life:

• Prioritize empathy and active listening to understand their perspective.
• Avoid direct challenges, focusing instead on shared values or neutral topics.
• Model calmness and rationality in your interactions.
• Encourage self-reflection through open-ended, non-confrontational questions.
• Set boundaries to protect your well-being and the relationship’s integrity.
• Be patient, recognizing that change is a long-term process.

By adhering to these principles, you align your actions with the requirements of a rational life, fostering a relationship based on mutual respect and reason while working toward reducing emotional reactivity. If you have further details about specific behaviors or incidents with your relative, I can refine this advice accordingly. Let me know if you'd like additional guidance or tools to support this process.